‘Just cause’ puts off rent debate

I’m surprised a new law expected to win council approval in

Glendale next week apparently is appeasing tenants and causing an

uproar among landlords.

Billed as a “tenant protection ordinance,” the ordinance will be

difficult to enforce, and I suspect there will be few occasions the

city will even try. The law is intended to prohibit landlords from

evicting people in retaliation for having exercised basic rights,

like complaining about problems on the property.

Landlords are outraged at the imposition, though it seems

virtually all sides and parties agree only a tiny percentage of the

city’s landlords engage in the predatory practice being addressed.

Based upon their comments at recent council meetings, and in

countless calls and notes I’ve received, the concern landlords have

is two-pronged. They’re worried about unscrupulous tenants making

wild claims, leveling false accusations to stop or delay legitimate

evictions. Worse, the ordinance is seen as another step toward the

edge of a slippery slope to rent control.

Tenants and tenant groups are pleased about the new law. Some seem

to believe a retaliatory eviction could lead to the police department

carting a landlord off in handcuffs, or at least in an expensive

fine.

Wake up, folks.

Consider the city’s frequent state of impotence when it comes to

enforcing so many other codes on the books, from building codes to

sign ordinances. Indeed, it’s ironic that one of the local landlords

recently lobbying the council to reject tenant-driven legislation

included Aram Kazazian, the man who built a now-infamous home at 3150

El Tovar.

It’s a behemoth that was erected largely without permits, far out

of compliance with many city codes, and despite repeated warnings

from the city that Kazazian had better stop it -- or else! The house

stands as testimony to the enormous gulf between dreams of strict

enforcement and reality.

That’s not to say City Hall can’t enforce ANY rules. But the

council has not pursued the creation and funding of an office to

monitor and enforce alleged violations, a costly venture that would

surely make even the most avid council proponents of the ordinance

think twice. And so, the proposed ordinance barring retaliatory

evictions smells like one of those that will eventually have city

staff weighing complaints and advising tenants, “We view this as a

civil matter between you and the landlord.”

If a tenant is in court attempting to contest an eviction, one

weapon in the tenant’s defense arsenal could be the landlord’s

alleged violation of the protection ordinance. If the tenant called

the city to complain about a lack of water service in the building,

and was then evicted within the following three months, a landlord

would essentially have to prove they had just cause for the eviction.

Of course, celebrating this level of protection assumes a tenant has

the resources to competently battle an eviction.

Beyond that, the city attorney’s staff report on the ordinance

vaguely noted violations “could be prosecuted as code enforcement

matters.” But look at the challenges the city faces enforcing the

rules when it’s easy to prove a code has been flagrantly violated.

Typically, city efforts begin with attempts to negotiate

compliance, a process that can take months in back-and-forth

communications. And determining whether an eviction is retaliatory

will require more than a tape measure. Among tenants addressing the

council in recent weeks, one claims to have received an eviction

notice the morning after complaining to the city about rent hikes.

But few cases can be as clear cut as that. City Atty. Scott Howard

has repeatedly qualified talk of enforcement by reminding everyone

the city would only pursue “the most egregious cases.” Egregious is

in the eye of the beholder.

Let’s assume we’re dealing with a landlord who is so unscrupulous

they’d evict a tenant because the tenant reported health and safety

violations in their building. Is it outrageous to suspect that

landlord might concoct valid excuses to defend eviction?

We see the same scenario in personnel matters every day.

Supervisors who want to retaliate against a subordinate recognize

they can’t simply fire the employee. But they begin “building a

file,” a list of petty, contorted and sometimes invented

transgressions, a package eventually used to justify firing the

employee. Now we can look forward to landlords documenting episodes

of tenants who drive recklessly in the parking lot, play loud music

and inconvenience other tenants by leaving wet clothes in the laundry

room’s only washer.

As was noted in the staff report reviewed by the council when the

proposal was discussed last week, forbidding retaliatory evictions is

usually one facet of a sweeping set of tenant protections, including

rent control. I’ve been unable to find another city that has

implemented just a prohibition on vengeful evictions, and Howard told

me he hasn’t found any other jurisdiction that employs only “just

cause eviction protections.”

In a sidebar on the council’s discussion, the staff report

specifically announced the proposed ordinance was not “pre-released”

to tenant, landlord and business groups. And based upon what council

members said at this week’s meeting, it appears they’re poised to

approve the tenant protection rule next week.

Does anyone else remember just three weeks ago, when the council

repealed a rule mandating inspections of rental units, an ordinance

approved in June? The repeal was premised upon the council’s belated

conclusion that too little effort was devoted to gathering input.

In the current situation, the ban on retaliatory evictions has had

lots of newspaper coverage, and the days between last week’s

discussion and next week’s provide a chance to build awareness. But

that describes what took place in June, too, so one has to wonder if

the council isn’t simply setting itself up for a repeal replay.

Ultimately, it’s difficult to see why tenants (or council members)

believe the “just cause” rules will provide a substantive protection.

Rather, it seems to be another episode of the council treading water,

resisting the current pulling them toward rent control.

That’s not to say rent control is desirable or inevitable. But

illusory steps like the retaliatory eviction ordinance are City

Hall’s latest tactic for putting off the day officials will finally

have no choice but to confront rent control, and make some decisions.

* WILL ROGERS’ column appears Tuesdsays and Fridays in the

News-Press. He can be reached 24 hours a day at 637-3200, voice mail

ext. 906, or by e-mail at WillColumn@aol.com.